Mavis ENSTAD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTH CENTRAL OF BARNES PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 65, a Public Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
Civ. No. 9457.
Supreme Court of North Dakota.
July 7, 1978.
268 N.W.2d 126
Vogel, Brantner, Kelly, Knutson, Weir & Bye, Fargo, and Ployhar, Thorson & Weisenburger, Valley City, for defendant and appellee; argued by David F. Knutson, Fargo.
PAULSON, Justice.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff, Mavis Enstad, from the judgment of the Barnes County District Court, entered on December 7, 1977, in which the court dismissed, with prejudice, Enstad‘s action against the defendant, North Central of Barnes Public School District No. 65, a public corporation (hereinafter North Central).
Enstad was employed as a teacher at North Central during the 1973-1974, 1974-1975, and the 1975-1976 school terms. During the 1973-1974 term she taught English and physical education classes and coached girls’ track. She was also supervisor for the cheerleaders and the pompon girls. During the 1974-1975 and 1975-1976 terms she was assigned the same duties at North Central with the exception that she was not assigned to coach the girls’ track team. On May 17, 1976, a written offer of reemployment for the 1976-1977 term was delivered to Enstad which included the same teaching assignments she held during the current school term plus the additional assignment of coaching girls’ basketball. On June 11, 1976, Enstad sent a letter to the North Central Board of Education in which she accepted the offer of reemployment for the 1976-1977 school term but rejected the assignment to coach girls’ basketball. The North Central Board of Education informed Enstad by letter, on June 18, 1976, that “Your counter-offer contained in your letter of June 11, 1976, is not acceptable and is rejected“. The letter further informed Enstad that unless she accepted the offer of reemployment for the 1976-1977 school term, including the girls’ basketball coaching assignment, the Board would consider her position open and would employ another person to fill the position. Enstad refused to accept the offer with the coaching assignment. Consequently, she was not employed at North Central during the 1976-1977 school term, and another teacher was hired to fill the position.
On February 14, 1977, Enstad filed an action against North Central alleging that North Central acted wrongfully and illegally when it failed to reemploy her as a teacher for the 1976-1977 school term. Enstad asserted before the district court, and she asserts now on appeal, that she was unqualified to coach girls’ basketball and that, pursuant to
On July 21, 1977, a trial was held before the Barnes County District Court, without a jury. The court filed findings of fact and conclusions of law on December 7, 1977, in which the court concluded that North Central had neither violated North Dakota law nor breached any contractual duty with regard to Enstad‘s nonreemployment for the 1976-1977 school term. Accordingly, judgment was entered dismissing, with prejudice, Enstad‘s action for damages against North Central.
The following issues are before this court on Enstad‘s appeal from the district court‘s judgment:
(1) Whether or not Enstad lost whatever rights she may have had under
Section 15-47-27, N.D.C.C. , when she failed to give written notice of acceptance of reemployment to North Central on or before May 15, 1976; and
(2) Whether or not Enstad‘s rights were violated by North Central when her offer of reemployment for the 1976-1977 school term was conditioned upon her acceptance of the additional assignment of coaching girls’ basketball.
It is undisputed that negotiations occurred between North Central and the teachers’ representative organization, the North Central Education Association, under
”Time for renewal of teachers’ contracts. —Any teacher who has been employed by any school district or the director of institutions in this state during any school year, shall be notified in writing by the school board or the director of institutions, as the case may be, not earlier than the fifteenth day of February and not later than the fifteenth day of April in the school year in which he or she has been employed to teach, of the determination not to renew the teacher‘s contract for the ensuing school year, if such determination has been made; and failure to give such written notice on or before said date shall constitute an offer to renew the contract for the ensuing school year under the same terms and conditions as the contract for the then current year. On or before April fifteenth in any year and not earlier than February fifteenth, all teachers shall be notified of a date, which shall not be less than thirty days after the date of such notice, upon which they will be required to accept or reject proffered re-employment, and failure on the part of the teacher to accept said offer within such time shall be deemed to be a rejection of the offer. Any teacher who shall have accepted the offer of re-employment, either by the action or nonaction of the school board or the director of institutions, on or before April fifteenth, as herein provided, shall be entitled to the usual written contract for the ensuing school year, as provided by law and shall notify the school board or the director of institutions in writing of his or her acceptance or rejection on or before the date specified or before May fifteenth, whichever is earlier. Failure on the part of the teacher to provide such notification shall relieve the school board or the director of institutions of the continuing contract provision of sections 15-47-26 through 15-47-28. Nothing in this section shall be construed as in any manner repealing or limiting the operation of any existing law with reference to the dismissal of teachers for cause.”
In Dickinson Education Association v. Dickinson Public School District No. 1, 252 N.W.2d 205 (N.D.1977) this court concluded that the provisions of
North Central asserts that the teacher must give written notice of acceptance of the statutory offer of contract renewal by May 15; otherwise the teacher loses all rights to reemployment under
“On or before April fifteenth in any year and not earlier than February fifteenth, all teachers shall be notified of a date, which shall not be less than thirty days after the date of such notice, upon which they will be required to accept or reject proffered re-employment, and failure on the part of the teacher to accept said offer within such time shall be deemed to be a rejection of the offer.”
We interpret this provision as imposing a duty upon the school board to give notice, on or before April 15, to all teachers of their duty to accept reemployment by the specified date. The provision clearly expresses an intent to give a teacher not less than thirty days to accept reemployment from the date the teacher receives such notice from the school board. Upon construing
In the instant case, North Central failed to notify Enstad on or before April 15, 1976, of a specific date by which she must accept proffered reemployment. Consequently, we hold that Enstad did not lose her rights to reemployment under
The second issue before this court is whether Enstad‘s rights were violated by North Central when her offer of reemployment for the 1976-1977 school year was conditioned upon her acceptance of the additional assignment of coaching girls’ basketball.
Both parties agree that upon failure of the school board to give written notice of nonrenewal on or before April 15 of the current school year, a teacher has a right to a contract of reemployment for the ensuing school year under
This issue requires this court to first construe
Both parties in the instant case have cited the case of McCullough v. Cashmere School Dist. No. 222, 15 Wash.App. 730, 551 P.2d 1046 (1976) to support their position. Upon Shepardizing the McCullough, supra, case we have found that it was overruled by the Washington Supreme Court in Barnes v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 88 Wash.2d 483, 563 P.2d 199 (1977). Since both cases have similar fact situations to that which exists in the instant case we believe it is appropriate to briefly discuss both cases.
McCullough, supra, involved two teachers whose offers of reemployment by the school district included additional assignments of extracurricular duties which neither teacher had been assigned during the current school year. One teacher was given an additional assignment to coach girls’ track and girls’ basketball. The other teacher was given the extracurricular duty of coaching seventh, eighth, and ninth grade girls’ basketball. The teachers refused to accept the contract offers with the additional coaching assignments, asserting that such assignments by the district placed an invalid condition on the teachers’ statutory right of reemployment under Washington‘s Continuing Contract Law,
“The continuing contract law guarantees an offer of reemployment, but not the exact contractual terms of the offer. To hold otherwise would be to inhibit the district‘s administrative responsibility to the public by creating in the teacher the right to teach a particular class or at a particular school within the district. Of necessity, the district must be able to adapt to changes in enrollment, curriculum, available money, and other circumstances by changing teacher assignments.
“However, there is within the continuing contract law the essential implication that every offer for reemployment, which includes curricular assignments, must be a reasonable offer. A rule of reasonableness must be implied in the continuing contract law so that that law does not become a sword or subterfuge in the hands of the district, defeating the intent of the legislature to create job security. All parts of an offer for reemployment, curricular and extracurricular, must be within the education, professional preparation, and experience of the teacher. The offer may not be of such extended hours or other adverse conditions as to make the offer unreasonable and hence unacceptable. Nor may the offer be one which bears no reasonable relation to a legitimate educational purpose. If a rule of reasonableness were not implied in the continuing contract law, that law would be a nullity by allowing arbitrary dismissal after April 15 through an unreasonable offer of reemployment.”
The Washington Court of Appeals held that teachers may be required to assume reasonable extracurricular duties as a condition of reemployment. The Court of Appeals further held that the additional coaching assignments imposed upon the teachers in the case were reasonable conditions of reemployment and that the school district had fully complied with the requirements of the continuing contract law. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals concluded that, upon the teachers’ refusal to accept their offers of reemployment, the school district was free to hire persons to replace the teachers.
The case of Barnes v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 88 Wash.2d 483, 563 P.2d 199 (1977), involved a distinguishable fact situation from that which existed in McCullough supra. In Barnes, supra, a number of certificated administrative personnel of the school district received notice that their present contract status as administrators was being changed, and they were offered contracts for the ensuing school year to assume duties as teachers at severe reductions in salary. The Washington Supreme Court held that under Washington‘s Continuing Contract Law [
“Our interpretation of the statute requires that language to the contrary contained in the opinion of the Court of Appeals in McCollough [sic] v. Cashmere School Dist. 222, 15 Wash.App. 730, 551 P.2d 1046 (1976), be overruled.”
It appears to this court that the rationales found in both McCullough and Barnes, supra, are compatible with each other. The courts reached different conclusions based on entirely separate and distinguishable fact situations. One might conclude, based upon the Washington Supreme Court‘s statements in Barnes, supra, that a teacher in Washington, who has rights under the continuing contract statute of that State, is subject to reasonable extracurricular reassignments providing the contract offered constitutes an offer containing “substantially identical contractual terms and conditions” as existed under the teacher‘s current contract of employment.
The case of Collins v. Wakonda Independent School Dist. # 1, 252 N.W.2d 646 (S.D. 1977) involved South Dakota‘s Continuing
“The purposes of the Continuing Contract Law are to provide teachers security in employment and to prevent dismissal of a teacher without cause. The employment protected is the right to continued employment within the school district in a teaching position for which the teacher is qualified. Moreover, the position offered in the new contract must not be a demotion, as compared to the teaching position held under the existing contract. [Citations omitted.]
“By the Continuing Contract Law the legislature did not, however, intend to grant the teacher a vested right to a specific school or to a specific class level of students within any school, in the district. The school board must be able to adapt to changes in enrollment, curriculum, available money, and other circumstances in determining the re-employment contract which is to be offered.”
The case of Goodwin v. Bennett County High School Independent School District, 226 N.W.2d 166 (S.D.1975), involved a teacher who had been employed with the school for two years as both a teacher and coach. The school board offered the teacher a contract for the ensuing school year which did not include any coaching assignment. The South Dakota Supreme Court held that the school board had the right to reassign and change the teacher‘s duties and that such contract offer satisfied the teacher‘s reemployment rights under the South Dakota Continuing Teacher Contract Law. The South Dakota Supreme Court stated in Goodwin, supra, 226 N.W.2d at 168-169:
“While Goodwin was entitled to an automatic renewal of his contract to teach, he is nevertheless subject to the authority of the school board under its general powers to direct and manage the schools of the district and the employees employed therein.
“A teacher, in acquiring a permanent status, does not thereby acquire a vested right to teach any certain class or in any certain school. The tenure laws do not interfere with the general power and right of school authorities to assign teachers to particular classes and to particular schools in accordance with their judgment and desire reasonably exercised. Such laws do not take from school authorities their incidental powers, originally to assign and subsequently to transfer a teacher to such classroom, such building, and such division as it may determine to be for the best interest of the school as long as the teacher is not thereby demoted in violation of the laws. [Citations omitted.] The power to transfer or reassign must be exercised in good faith and for the best interest of the school district, and must not be on an arbitrary and capricious basis or for the purpose of compelling a teacher‘s resignation. [Citation omitted.]” [Emphasis in original.]
The following cases also support the general proposition that school authorities have the right to make reasonable assignments and reassignments of a teacher‘s class assignments and extracurricular duties. Richards v. Board of Education Joint School Dist. No. 1, Sheboygan, 58 Wis.2d 444, 206 N.W.2d 597 (1973); Board of Education, Tucson High School Dist. No. 1 v. Williams, 1 Ariz.App. 389, 403 P.2d 324 (1965); Pease v. Millcreek Township School Dist., 412 Pa. 378, 195 A.2d 104 (1963); Mitchell v. Board of Trustees of Visalia Union High School, 5 Cal.App.2d 64, 42 P.2d 397 (Dist.Ct.App.1935).
The rationales of the foregoing cases, in particular Collins, supra, and Goodwin, supra, provide helpful guidelines for interpreting
Pursuant to
We construe
The ultimate question which this court must determine regarding this issue is whether North Central‘s offer of reemployment to Enstad, which included the additional assignment of coaching girls’ basketball, was a reasonable offer in compliance with
The district court made the following findings of fact pertinent to this issue:
“VIII.
“The defendant school district acted in good faith and in a reasonable manner in selecting the plaintiff as the person to be assigned the girls basketball coaching duty and acted in good faith and in a reasonable manner in offering a renewal of her contract for the year 1976 to 1977 with the addition of the girls basketball coaching duty.
* * * * * *
“X.
“The Court finds that the evidence indicates that the plaintiff was qualified to assume the duties of a girls basketball coach. The Court further finds that the Plaintiff‘s decision to reject the offered contract with the additional coaching duty was based upon personal choice and for personal reasons.”
The evidence presented to the district court reveals the following undisputed credentials which Enstad possessed at the time she was assigned to coach girls’ basketball at North Central:
- Enstad has a double major in physical education and English;
- Enstad taught physical education classes at North Central for three years, part of which instruction included teaching the rules and fundamentals of basketball;
- Enstad coached the girls’ track team at North Central during the first year of her employment at that school;
- Enstad had a college course in team sports which included the sport of basketball;
- Enstad played “6 girl” basketball on a Women‘s Recreation Association during her years at college;3 and
- Enstad played “6 girl” basketball during the eighth grade and also during her freshman year at high school.
The Education Superintendent at North Central testified as follows regarding the necessary qualifications to coach high school sports within this state:
“Q. Mr. Olson, in this connection I don‘t suppose there are any departments of public instruction requirements with regard to coaching basketball or football or track; are there?
“A. No, there aren‘t. In fact the only recommendations we get are through the North Dakota High School Activities. And all they say—and it‘s pretty broad —that is any certified teacher who is on the staff is in their eyes is qualified to coach.”
Perhaps there will be a time in the future when accredited high schools in this State, by legislative mandate, will be required to hire high school athletic coaches possessing specific qualifications exceeding those possessed by Enstad at the time of her offer to coach at North Central. Apparently, no such requirement currently exists in this State. In the absence of such qualification requirements for coaching high school athletics this court certainly cannot conclude, based upon the record before us, that the district court was clearly erroneous in its findings that Enstad was qualified to assume the duties of a girls’ high school basketball coach and that it was reasonable for the school board to assign Enstad the additional duty of coaching girls’ basketball. There is substantial evidence in the record for one to conclude that Enstad possessed sufficient qualifications and experience to be assigned the duty of coaching a girls’ high school basketball team.
We hold that North Central offered Enstad a reasonable contract of reemployment for the 1976-1977 school term in compliance with the provisions of
In accordance with this opinion, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
ERICKSTAD, C. J., and PEDERSON, VOGEL and SAND, JJ., concur.